https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237687 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the declaration was filed late or because of alleged non-compliance with Rule 57F(20). The authority had power under Rule 57G(9) to condone delay, and the delayed declaration was rejected without valid reason. The denial on Rule 57F(20) grounds also failed because that allegation was not contained in the show cause notice, and the adjudicating authority went beyond its scope. Procedural requirements were treated as technical rather than substantive, so credit remained admissible and the revenue's challenge did not raise any substantial question of law. en-us Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Oct 2013 23:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237687 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the declaration was filed late or because of alleged non-compliance with Rule 57F(20). The authority had power under Rule 57G(9) to condone delay, and the delayed declaration was rejected without valid reason. The denial on Rule 57F(20) grounds also failed because that allegation was not contained in the show cause notice, and the adjudicating authority went beyond its scope. Procedural requirements were treated as technical rather than substantive, so credit remained admissible and the revenue's challenge did not raise any substantial question of law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237687